oihfedfhorigiojisdeffandomcom-20200214-history
Ewrohenfg
primary reason for not using the MBTI, which is by no means an awful instrument, is simply that it is not as accurate as tests based on the "Big Five." Actually, "test" is a misnomer. It is a personality assessment. You can flunk a test but you can't flunk a personality assessment because everyone has a personality (whether it's a pleasant one or not is a separate topic). To build a personality assessment one must have a theory of personality, which means - among other things - an outline of its key characteristics, how they are formed (example: nature vs. nurture), how they interact, and how they 'show up' in the form of behavior and attitudes. There are many theories of personality, and even more theories of behavior change. The MBTI is based on Jungian theory, and posits that there are four essential dimensions of personality (the quadrants on which every test-taker receives a score). The foundational instrument was developed during the early 1940's. It has been continually tested and refined since then, but in the interim, many other tests also have been invented, tested and refined. The "Big Five" is a theory of personality that proposes there are actually five, not four, dimensions of personality. It is based on research conducted by independent psychological researchers in multiple locations across the globe. Two things to keep in mind: *Both of these instruments, as well as several others, were designed to provide personality profiles of normal, mentally healthy people. They were''not'' designed to measure psychopathology, as was the MMPI (Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory). *Computing power has increased dramatically since the 1940's. Psychologists have been, by necessity, pioneers in the use of advanced statistical procedures (conducting behavioral research on humans is really hard). Back then, they could not easily or quickly collect, record, or analyze large data sets - particularly when the analyses were complex. The advent of high-power, high-speed computing has changed everything. Unlike the MBTI, which was drafted by one person based on an untested (& possibly untestable) theory, the 'Big Five" was developed on the basis of independent research, which used a broader range of inputs. (Think: diversifying your portfolio of information). The independence of the researchers, as well as the focus on empiricism, make it much more robust than the MBTI. Moreover, it has been tested globally, and found to 'work' in assessing the personalities of people from the far corners of the earth and all walks of life. This is not true of the MBTI. Another difference is that the MBTI uses forced-choice responses. There are multiple reasons for this - some make sense and some do not - but the simple fact is that, in life, few choices are truly binary. The binary construction of the answers violates the assumptions of a number of useful multivariate methods, tending to produce distorted results. This means that the 'profile' you get may not be very accurate - or may be accurate only under certain circumstances. In fact, when independent researchers (quantitatively) measure the accuracy of the MBTI, outcomes are unimpressive. There are several instruments based on the "Big Five" theory. They have been found to be more valid, reliable, and accurate than the MBTI. I say all of the above with one gigantic caveat: no instrument in existence can fully measure the complex mix of'' state'' (how a person 'is' in one circumstance) and ''trait ''(stable characteristics that are found in most circumstances). Moreover, the individual is usually the wrong unit of analysis. We are social animals. To a far greater extent than most realize, our behavior is shaped by social context and by the behavior of others. Personality assessments can measure about 30% (at most) of who we are at any given time.* Given that, my view is: if the shoe fits, wear it. If not, let it go. * Which is not by any means true of astrology. Astrology is almost never tested - and on those very rare occasions when it is, turns out to be consistently and spectacularly wrong